I think they will find a host eventually, I heard they also had trouble with this tons of times when Anand was still World Champion but they resolved it eventually. I would be suprised if this will still be a problem by like July or later especially since Carlsen is WCC right now
Nobody wants the Chess WC
Sort:
May 5, 2014
0
#3
To have a 1-on-1 WC match every year is definitely too much. It would also require a Candidates tourney every year which would require a World Cup cycle every year and so on and so on. Which all require big sponsorship. Or you change the qualifying rules. But the more you fiddle with it, the less meaningful the WC title becomes, in my opinion.
A 2-year rhythm makes (more) sense.
If market forces - sponsorship, interest from the public, etc. - are not generating the money, then clearly the event is too expensive overall.
I would also suggest that a six or seven figure prize fund for the Chess World Championship is pretty excessive.
We have the Magnus-hype in Oslo, but maybe it isnt enough to collect the money needed. We, the chessplayers, and some newspapers really wants this to happen here, but our wishes and the money isnt connected. The first priority now for the chess assosiation in Norway is to raise money for th Chess.olympics in Tromsø in Nothern Norway. Jøran Jansson, our boss, wanted both, but the bankaccount disagrees.
TomHaegin wrote:
To have a 1-on-1 WC match every year is definitely too much. It would also require a Candidates tourney every year which would require a World Cup cycle every year and so on and so on. Which all require big sponsorship. Or you change the qualifying rules. But the more you fiddle with it, the less meaningful the WC title becomes, in my opinion.
A 2-year rhythm makes (more) sense.
If Carlsen would defend it every 2 years instead of one people would say its unfair cause Anand defended it every year for 5 years even though he is getting old while Carlsen is still young and he has every 2 years to prepare instead of 1
People would say that it would be back like Bobby Fischer's time ( 3years per title defense) and say it makes things too easy for the reigning champion
The match-format isnt good enough to arrange WC seldom. There might be 100 great players in the world, and the best might never get the chance to play.
Maybe a supercandidate kombined with WC would be better.
The world Champion can have walkover into the Semifinal.
First round can play two games, the quarterfinal 4 games between each players, the semifinal can be 6 games , and the final 8.
This setup will give more players the chance, the tournament will be more interesting, and it can be arranged every second year.
XDave121X wrote:
TomHaegin wrote:
To have a 1-on-1 WC match every year is definitely too much. It would also require a Candidates tourney every year which would require a World Cup cycle every year and so on and so on. Which all require big sponsorship. Or you change the qualifying rules. But the more you fiddle with it, the less meaningful the WC title becomes, in my opinion.
A 2-year rhythm makes (more) sense.
If Carlsen would defend it every 2 years instead of one people would say its unfair cause Anand defended it every year for 5 years even though he is getting old while Carlsen is still young and he has every 2 years to prepare instead of 1
People would say that it would be back like Bobby Fischer's time ( 3years per title defense) and say it makes things too easy for the reigning champion
Anand didn't defend the title in 2009 and 2011, but regardless who is Champion a title match every year is just too much.
Nobody wants to host the match because they are confident that Carlsen will win very easily- which is probably true.
Maybe, just maybe, FIDE (and millionaire chess for that matter) should stop doing this backwards...line up the venue and sponsors, see how much money is there, then announce the appropriate and supportable prize fund.
If it's low, well, tough. That's the law of supply and demand.
IM pfren. I am not good enough myself to understand why Carlsen should win easily, but you are an IM. Is it so that your strenght versus a GM is almost the same strenghtdifference as it is between Carlsen and the nr 2-10 players?
How great are your chances against a 2550 GM? Is it hopeless, or do you beat them on your best days?
Historically, raising money for anything, has allways been a problem. NASCAR has to jump through hoops to get sponcers. Politicians have to jump through hoops for re-election campaigns. Olympic atlelets have the same problems. Look at Superbowl commercials. In the 60's, they would spend an un-heard of amount, $50,000.--100,000. for 60 seconds. Today they spend $3-4 million. I like this thread because it sounds dirty. Chess + money. I guess I'm really not qualified to comment on either. I suck at playing, and I have no money, but separating people from their money seems to be best handled by the professionals; crooks and scammers.
owltuna wrote:
Bangkok?
WOO HOO!!!
btickler wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, FIDE (and millionaire chess for that matter) should stop doing this backwards...line up the venue and sponsors, see how much money is there, then announce the appropriate and supportable prize fund.
If it's low, well, tough. That's the law of supply and demand.
+1
Maybe Las Vegas. People there will gamble on anything. With betting on everything from 'Carlsens next move' to the ultimate winner would produce enough money to support the ridiculous mulit-million dollar prize.
Funny how when people talke about their ratings tons of people say "Just enjoy the game". But nobody says this when the WC contenstants want a multi-million dollar prize.
btickler wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, FIDE (and millionaire chess for that matter) should stop doing this backwards...line up the venue and sponsors, see how much money is there, then announce the appropriate and supportable prize fund.
If it's low, well, tough. That's the law of supply and demand.
Then you'd basically see the demise of top level competitive chess. Top players would be unhappy with the lower payouts, then would probably drop out of FIDE altogether. The invisible hand of the free market is a hard around the throat of worldwide chess.
Kageri wrote:
according to a german newspaper the FIDE seems to have trouble to find a host for the upcoming chess world championship this year. Paris, New York, Miami, Dubai, Khanty-Mansiysk have declined and even Norway seems not interested. It's just too expensive (~3,5 million Euro for prize money and allowances), the risk is too high, it's hard to find sponsors, the interest is too low etc.
so, the situation is still unclear.
what do you think is the prize money too high or should the modus be changed to 2 years (or more?)
You know how the press often gets details wrong, especially on obscure topics like this, but I wonder if the "Miami" reference in the article concerns the bid proposal I mailed into FIDE (mostly as a joke) the week after Anand won the candidates match.
In any case, I didn't decline hosting the match, FIDE declined me, because I'm not on the "approved bidders list" and I also couldn't personally guarantee the cash purse for the winner and loser.
according to a german newspaper the FIDE seems to have trouble to find a host for the upcoming chess world championship this year. Paris, New York, Miami, Dubai, Khanty-Mansiysk have declined and even Norway seems not interested. It's just too expensive (~3,5 million Euro for prize money and allowances), the risk is too high, it's hard to find sponsors, the interest is too low etc.
so, the situation is still unclear.
what do you think is the prize money too high or should the modus be changed to 2 years (or more?)